Many
job listings include the word "energetic" as a desirable
quality in applicants. The first chart
lists the most to least energetic cities in the US. It is
interesting to compare this list with the article below on US household
incomes. In such a comparison, cities like
San Francisco rank high, while places like Memphis rank low.
The similarity in the two rankings is evidence that more energetic
people tend to make more money.

While
"energetic" might seem to be a difficult quality to measure, it has not
been difficult in practice. At bottom are
research findings that people readily agree on what
is energetic behavior. Secondly, laboratory
measures of individuals' physical activities correlate well with peer
ratings and with interview responses.

All
these correlations suggest that further research on energetic behavior
would be productive. In the past Sloan has felt
that an individual's financial success comes
from: 1/3 IQ, 1/3 social skills, and 1/3 ambition.
Now (September 2008) he feels that the quality "energetic" should be
added to the list, with about 1/4 credited to each of the revised four
qualities leading to success.

Maryland
knocked New Jersey out of the top spot this year, while Mississippi and
West Virginia were the poorest states in the Union.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Maryland is now
the wealthiest state in the union, as measured by median household
income, according to the latest stats from the Census Bureau.

The typical Maryland household earned
$65,144 in 2006, propelling it past New Jersey, which came in second
with earnings of $64,470, but had led the nation in 2005. Connecticut
finished in third place both years, recording a median income of
$63,422 in 2006.

Top
10 wealthiest states

Here's
where the median household income is highest

State

Income

Maryland

$65,144

New Jersey

$64,470

Connecticut

$63,422

Hawaii

$61,160

Massachusetts

$59,963

New Hampshire

$59,683

Alaska

$59,393

California

$56,645

Virginia

$56,277

Minnesota

$54,023

Source:U.S.
Census Bureau

The
10 poorest states

The
states with the lowest median household income

State

Income

New Mexico

$40,629

Montana

$40,627

Tennessee

$40,315

Kentucky

$39,372

Louisiana

$39,337

Alabama

$38,783

Oklahoma

$38,770

Arkansas

$36,599

West Virginia

$35,059

Mississippi

$34,473

Source:U.S.
Census Bureau

Maryland's income was nearly double that
of Mississippi, which, with a median of $34,473, was the nation's
poorest state. West Virginia, where the median household earned
$35,059, was second poorest and Arkansas, at $36,599, was third.

Income growth was highest in the District
of Columbia, where it rose 6.4 percent for the year. Median income in
both Nevada and New Mexico jumped 4.5 percent. Delaware, down 2.9
percent, took the biggest dip, followed by Rhode Island (down 2.0
percent) and Maine (down 1.6 percent).

Among places with 250,000 or more
residents, the affluent Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, boasts the
highest median income: $77,038. San Jose came in second at $73,804 and
San Francisco was third with $65,497.

The list of the 10 poorest cities was
filled with mostly old, northeastern and mid-western industrial
locales. Cleveland had the lowest median income of any city in the
nation with more than 250,000 residents; households there earned just
$26,535. Miami was the next poorest at $27,088, followed by Buffalo
($27,850), Detroit ($28,364), St. Louis ($30,936) and Cincinnati
($31,103).

Other poor sun-belt cities included
Memphis ($32, 593) and El Paso (33,103). With median income of $33,229,
Philadelphia was the only city among the nation's 10 biggest that was
also among the 10 poorest cities.

Among towns of between 65,000 and 250,000
in population, Yorba Linda, California, where six-figure incomes are
the rule, had the highest median income at $121,075. The Orange County
town is considerably wealthier than the second place city, Pleasanton,
California, in the Bay area, which had a median income of $105,956.

The lowest income town of any with more
than 65,000 population was Youngstown, Ohio at $21,850, which finished
last by a large margin. Muncie, Indiana was its closest rival for this
dubious distinction, with residents there earning $25,859, a difference
of 18 percent.

To investigate the
validity of the trait, Energetic,
two studies were conducted in which trait ratings of Energetic and objective measures
of performance were recorded. The first study used naive raters (N= 55) who
observed pairs of subjects perform in a laboratory setting. There was
84% agreement (p
< .001) among the raters as to which person was more Energetic, and
people rated as more Energetic
performed more energetically on the objectively measured tasks (p < .001).
The second study used peer ratings of Energetic and objective measures of
energetic behavior in a laboratory setting. There was high agreement
among the peers in ratings of Energetic,
r = .95 (N = 30) and r = .93 (N = 31) for two groups. Nine men from the
upper-quartile and nine men from the lower-quartile of the Energetic scores
were tested in the laboratory and were given a structured interview
regarding their physical activities. The correlation between peer
ratings and laboratory performance was .56 and between peer ratings and
the interview data, .64. The results support the position that trait
ratings can be valid indicators of regularities in behavior. The
procedures used in these studies could be a generally useful model for
investigations of the validity of trait ratings.

JohnGormly of Rutgers University

Requests
for reprints should be sent to: John B. Gormly, Department of
Psychology, Tillett Hall, Livingston Campus, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ 08903

I would like to thank
Dr. Anne V. Gormly for her helpful comments during the preparation of
this report, and I would like to thank Beatriz Champagne and John
McGowan for their assistance in collecting the data. This research was
supported by grants from the Research Council of Rutgers University and
the Charles and Johanna Busch Memorial Fund.